On Sun, Jun 17, 2001 at 06:40:52PM -0700, Ian Clarke wrote: > On Mon, Jun 18, 2001 at 03:30:58AM +0200, Oskar Sandberg wrote: > > Firstly, I believe this is a bed pissing solution (nice and warm at > > first, cold and sticky soon thereafter). Greater HTL values means more > > caching, not less, and thus if that truly is the problem then increasing > > the HTL will only make it worse. > > The worst caching is that closest to the requestor, a higher HTL makes > this less significant in proportion to caching on nodes which are likely > to be closer to the data epicenter - so your assertion is not > nescessarily true.
I think if you need HTL values around 100 on a comparetively small network then there is no epicenter topology what so ever. Theo noted a while ago that small world networks allow for pretty good search performance without any ordering at all - I think that is the only positive effect you are seeing at the moment. > > The argument that high HTL values > > flaten the search trees also seems reasonable. > > You say this like it is a bad thing. It is possible that due to the > seemingly rapid rate at which new nodes are being added to the network, > that it is getting "strung out", and insufficient path-compression is > taking place to address this problem. A higher maximum HTL could help > to alleviate this problem. It certainly can be bad thing - too flat trees is just as bad as too steep ones. What is actually going on at the moment is just pure speculation. -- 'DeCSS would be fine. Where is it?' 'Here,' Montag touched his head. 'Ah,' Granger smiled and nodded. Oskar Sandberg oskar at freenetproject.org _______________________________________________ Devl mailing list Devl at freenetproject.org http://lists.freenetproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devl
